Religion Without Salvation

By now it has sunk in that, for all its secularization, the United States is
perhaps the most religious country in the Western world. Recent confirmation
of this comes from a poll showing that 41 percent of Americans, a remarkably
high proportion, say that they have taken Jesus as their personal savior, an
increase of six percent over 1991.

But there is something odd about this figure, because during the same decade
regular church attendance, Bible reading, and participation in adult religion
classes have declined by an at least equal percentage.

This is a problem of Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox. Catholics attend
church in about the same proportion as Protestants, but they are far less likely
to read the Bible or enroll in adult-education courses. On the other hand, Catholics
remain less likely than Protestants to get divorced, and the highest divorce
rates are found in what are ostensibly the most “born again” parts
of the country. (My favorite statistic shows that in half the counties in Oklahoma
there are more divorces than marriages!)

How to account for this discrepancy between religious faith on the one hand
and commitment to religious practice on the other? George Barna, who took the
poll, thinks it shows that American religiosity does not have deep roots and
that church members “have traded spiritual passion for empty rituals,
clever methods, and mindless practices.” He calls, in effect, for massive
evangelization.

In many ways this is undoubtedly true, but it was ever thus. Throughout the
history of the Church, except perhaps for the earliest times, spiritual leaders
have always been aware of the weaknesses of popular religion, and the entire
history of Christianity could be written in terms of various attempts, many
of them successful, to awaken the slumbering spirit.

But in earlier times even people who were not devout tended to take part in
formal religious activities, which in some cases led to genuine conversions.
Now such people are much less likely to do so, if only because attending church
is no longer a socially encouraged activity. I think the biggest reason why
people cease attending church is not that they question this or that doctrine
or practice (it is always possible to find a church to fit one’s specifications)
but that they simply don’t feel like giving up their Sunday mornings.
They have nothing against church, they just always find something else to do.

One proposed solution is to make church more interesting than golf, the Sunday
newspaper, the talking heads on television, the park, or whatever else it is
that people do on Sundays. But that, I am afraid, is a lost cause. The McLaughlin
Group, highly paid professionals that they are, will always be more “stimulating”
than even the best preacher, and how can any church compete with the great outdoors
or with football?

The fatal flaw in the situation is revealed in the fact that such a discussion
is even taking place, because it omits what everyone until recently merely took
for granted—that people should go to church, no matter how unexciting
they may find it, because they believe it is true, believe that they are sinners
in need of redemption and that the Church offers that precious gift. If one
does not believe that, attending church has no meaning. If one does believe
it, staying away imperils one’s soul.

But the reader will have noticed that it is precisely among those who do accept
Jesus as their Savior that there has been a notable slippage in religious activity,
so this argument only goes so far. The rest of the explanation, I think, is
in a curious way precisely an overemphasis on Jesus as “personal”
Savior.

The deepest heresies are usually those that are largely unconscious, and in
our time the greatest threat to genuine Christianity comes from the assumption,
often shared by the devout as well as the lukewarm, that religion has to do
with feeling good. Accepting Jesus as my Savior gives me a sense of peace, a
conviction that I am right with God. But often that sense remains the only criterion
of faith.

“Cafeteria Christians” pick what they want from the Church and leave
the rest, and their principle of selection, as in a real cafeteria, is merely
what they think is tasty. Few go through the line loading up on the spiritual
equivalents of lettuce and steamed broccoli. Even many ostensibly devout people
do not think their faith can make demands on them. Taking part in formal religious
activities is merely an “option,” to be exercised entirely according
to the individual’s subjective sense of need.

True, we all need a savior; but Jesus Christ is our Savior because he is also
Lord, and “all things whatsoever” our Lord has commanded us we must
do. Even when we don’t find them exciting, fulfilling, affirming, or comfortable,
we will find them, in the end, saving.

—James Hitchcock, for the editors

James Hitchcock is Professor of History at St. Louis University in St. Louis. He and his wife Helen have four daughters. His most recent book is the two-volume work, The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life (Princeton University Press, 2004). He is a senior editor of Touchstone.

“Religion Without Salvation” first appeared in the June 2001 issue of Touchstone. If you enjoyed this article, you'll find more of the same in every issue.

Letters Welcome: One of the reasons Touchstone exists is to encourage conversation among Christians, so we welcome letters responding to articles or raising matters of interest to our readers. However, because the space is limited, please keep your letters under 400 words. All letters may be edited for space and clarity when necessary. letters@touchstonemag.com